06/09/1994 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
June 09, 1994
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chair
Otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Absent:
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chair (excused)
Also present:
John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
Patricia Sullivan, Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Johnson lead the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. Mr. Plisko outlined procedures
and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida
law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Public Hearings
1. Starboard Tower Clipper Cove Condo Association for a variance of 2 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft where 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback area from a
street right-of-way (Larboard Way) at 400 Island Way, Starboard Tower Clipper Cove Condomini um, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 94-24
Senior Planner John Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high security fence on the west perimeter of the swimming pool at
Starboard Tower Clipper Cove Condominium in a structural setback area from a street right-of-way where the property is not addressed. A variance for the existing six foot high PVC fence
on the property's north side was granted August 12, 1993. The six
foot high fence to the south received a variance approval on March 8, 1979. The pool area is a shared recreational facility with the adjacent Cutter Cove Condominium. The proposed
fence will join the ones north and south of the subject property.
The requested fence height is needed to provide security. Staff indicated the proposed fence will not block any driver's view of the street or sidewalk. The variance requested is minimal
and the fence will continue the existing height pattern in the area.
Kenneth Devol, President of the Starboard Tower Clipper Cove Condo Association, representing the applicant, stated they wish to replace a deteriorating fence built in the 1970s.
Mr. Devol responded to questions, indicating the new fence will match the others already in place. He stated his condominium complex shares a pool with Cutter Cove, a complex created
by the same developer but owned separately.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship, if any, subject to the following conditions:
1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the
applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site
or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within six (6) months from
the date of this public hearing; and 3) the fence shall be properly maintained to ensure the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Socratis & Eugenia Paskalidis for a variance of 2 ft to permit a wall height of 6 ft where a 4 ft maximum height is permitted in a structural setback from a street right-of-way (State
Road 580) at 2700 Landmark Dr, Wildwood of Countryside, Lot 47 less street, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 94-25
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a six foot high fence in a structural setback from a street right-of-way. The applicants
have lived on the property, a corner lot, for 14 years.
Mr. Richter indicated a hardship is imposed by the road project in progress on State Road 580. The proposed fence height is needed for privacy and noise abatement. The Florida Department
of Transportation's (FDOT) widening of State Road 580 has resulted in property condemnation. According to the applicants, the FDOT moved the property line
15 feet to the north of their property thereby eliminating a five foot wood fence built parallel to State Road 580. FDOT proposes to utilize the condemned area for sidewalks and green
space.
Mr. Richter stated this is a unique situation and the need for added security and privacy is justified. It was indicated demolition of an existing fence would expose the subject property
to imminent danger. Staff feels the fence will not adversely affect neighboring properties and the variance is minimal. The public view of the fence will be softened by landscaping.
When questioned about "imminent danger," Mr. Richter felt the added height would provide additional security for the pool.
Socratis Paskalidis, the owner/applicant, responded to questions, indicating property owners built the original fences. He said the situation has become dangerous as the road now runs
closer to the house. He wanted to build a six foot concrete block wall similar to his neighbors'.
Discussion ensued regarding the plight of all residential properties along State Road 580 that face similar circumstances. It was recommended the code be changed to cover this fencing
requirement so affected property owners are not inconvenienced by the need to obtain variances.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the FDOT widening of State
Road 580 subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and
other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding
the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing and 3) the landscaping shall be provided on the outside of the fence along the State Road 580 right-of-way
in accordance with the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 42.47. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. John Schultz/McDonald's Restaurant for a variance of 3 parking spaces to permit a total of 0 parking spaces where 3 parking spaces are required at 409 Mandalay Ave, Barbour-Morrow
Sub, Blk A, Lot 15 and part
of Lot 35, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 94-26
In a letter dated June 9, 1994, Todd Pressman of Pressman and Associates, representative for the applicant, requested a continuance until the City Commission has the opportunity to discuss
a proposed code amendment.
Mr. Richter indicated a code amendment scheduled for receipt by the City Commission on June 16, 1994, proposes to permit sidewalk cafes in this zone while exempting parking requirements.
If approved, the need for this variance request will be eliminated as the prior arrangement to lease off-site parking will be negated. Staff recommends continuance until the City Commission
acts upon the amendment.
Concerns were expressed regarding the property's history and conditions imposed on a previous variance request.
Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to August 25, 1994. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Johnson and Plisko voted "Aye." Mr. Gans voted
"Nay." Motion carried.
4. Sanford Sandelman, TRE/Ninfa's Mexican Restaurant for a variance of 20 ft to permit a minimum structural setback from the centerline of the right-of-way of US 19 of 155 ft where
175 ft is required at 19919 US Hwy 19, N, Sec 17-29-16, M&B 33.05, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). V 94-27
Senior Planner Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicant wishes to construct an awning within the street setback at the new Ninfa's Mexican Restaurant, formerly
the Olive Garden. The existing building was constructed in 1980.
The business is scheduled to open in mid June 1994. According to the application, an eight foot wide, nonconforming canopy was previously used to cover the waiting area for customers
in front of the building. During renovation, it was damaged and removed. No previous variance had been granted for the canopy.
In reply to a question regarding why a variance was now required when the previous tenant had a larger canopy, Mr. Richter indicated the building was constructed under the prior code.
Mr. Richter reported a hardship exists because the building cannot be moved to provide the required setback. The operational area of the restaurant will not be increased. Without benefit
of a variance, the applicant cannot place an awning of any type or size on the building's front. The variance is the minimum necessary to shade the walkway and
improve the restaurant's facade.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the new restaurant is part of a large chain. He said the contractor who removed the canopy was present to testify it was damaged
when it was moved. He noted the proposed awning is smaller than the previous one and will be supported by brick columns as it covers the entry walk and protects the building and patrons.
He felt this is a unique and reasonable use of the property. He said the canopy will not be built for financial gain and will have no adverse impact on the visual corridor or driveway.
Discussion ensued regarding how traffic obstructions made access to this property difficult. Mr. Richter said he would forward these concerns to the Traffic Engineer.
Discussion ensued. Consensus was that the canopy was previously a permitted use and is within the spirit and intent of the code.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner/applicant
and subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the
work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
5. City of Clearwater (Parks & Recreation) for variances of (1) 25 ft to permit 0 ft of waterfront rear setback where 25 ft is required to permit raised decking and handrails; and
(2) 110 ft to permit 72 ft of continuous clear space where 182 ft is required to permit two raised air conditioning platforms at 69 Bay Esplanade, Sec 5-29-15, M&B 33.01, zoned OS-R
(Open Space-Recreation). V 94-28
Chairman Plisko declared a conflict of interest regarding this case. Mr. Gans assumed the chair.
Mr. Richter explained the application in detail, stating the applicants wish to construct a raised deck with a handrail over an existing concrete platform to the sea wall. The air conditioner
units on platforms located two feet from the building will extend eight feet from the building. Staff indicated a variance for these units appears warranted due to the
narrow configuration of the subject property creating an unusual clear space requirement.
In answer to a question, Mr. Richter explained the deck will be south of the building near the water and the air conditioning units will be on the east side in the clear space.
Art Kader, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation, representing the applicant as reported the 45 year old building, first used as a hatchery, needs renovation. He stated citizen input
was carefully considered. Plans for the building include incorporating the tropical seascape theme and constructing a raised wooden deck to cover the old unused boat launching facility.
The other boat ramp will remain as it is. He stated the other variance was required because of flood plain requirements that air conditioning units be raised off of the ground.
Mr. Kader responded to questions, stating the City plans to renovate the entire park to Mandalay Avenue and address the erosion problem across from the Yacht Basin Apartments. He noted
the beach community requested the City continue the new landscaping across Mandalay to the park by the Fire Department.
Mr. Kader stated the City hopes to rent an overflow parking lot by the Beach Recreation Center from Florida Power.
It was requested all plot plans furnished the Board include directional information (North) for ease of reading the drawings.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Martin moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval
as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and was not caused by the owner/applicant
subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the
work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) the requisite building permit(s)
shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Johnson and Gans voted "Aye."
Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
The following Land Development Code Amendments were also considered:
ORDINANCE NO. 5631-94 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING
SECTION 35.11, CODE OF ORDI NANCES, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF PERSONAL SERVICES; AMEND ING SECTIONS 40.284 AND 40.304, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE FOR PERSONAL SERVICES AS CONDITIONAL
USES IN THE LIMITED OFFICE AND GENERAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 41.053, CODE OF ORDINANCES, ESTABLISHING SUPPLEMENTARY STANDARDS FOR SUCH USES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Senior Planner Richter explained the discussed ordinance in detail, stating the proposed amendments are for the City's personal services uses in office zoning districts. On March 3, 1994,
the Commission directed staff to pursue a Land Development Code amendment to allow certain personal services uses (specifically beauty salons and barber shops) in office zoning districts.
Staff developed an ordinance that clarifies what personal services uses are and provides for these uses in the Limited Office and General Office zoning districts as conditional uses.
Conditional use supplementary standards, established as part of this ordinance, ensure specified personal services uses are compatible with both office uses within the zoning districts
and uses in surrounding districts. Staff clarifies the definition of "personal service" by using more standard language describing the use in general terms, and to add other specific
examples of personal services uses consistent with previous staff interpretations.
Concerns were expressed regarding parking problems inherent to beauty parlor use. The possibility of serious parking problems was addressed and it was strongly recommended that adequate
parking should be required. The consensus was to continue discussion of this item until June 23, 1994.
ORDINANCE NO. 5632-94 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTION 41.053, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USES
I CONJUNCTION WITH OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES, DISPLAYS AND/OR STORAGE CONDITIONAL USES; AMENDING CHAPTER 41, DIVISIONS 7 AND 8, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO SIGNIFI CANTLY REVISE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR TEMPORARY BUILDINGS, PORTABLE BUILDINGS AND TENTS, AND FOR TEMPO RARY RETAIL SALES AND DISPLAYS; AMENDING SECTION 42.34, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO DELETE REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY
COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS FOUND IN THE SECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Senior Planner Richter explained the ordinance in detail stating the proposed amendments are to the City's temporary use ordinance requirements. Sections are combined into a single
section dealing with temporary uses. Major differences are: establish approval time periods for specific types of uses; locate all temporary use information in a single code section;
establish specific use requirements for types of
temporary uses; remove the City Manager from the appeal process; eliminate restrictions on outdoor sales uses that prohibit tents and temporary buildings for such uses approved as conditional
uses; and address signage for temporary uses.
Mr. Richter explained Section Two was added and Section One, deleted. He noted Central Permitting issues temporary permits for parking lots.
Mr. Richter said the ordinance will permit temporary parking by 1) Jack Russell Stadium and 2) lots operated by and for the benefit of non profit organizations. The penalty for a violation
is $250 per day. Those who do not secure a proper permit will be subject to a severe penalty.
The Board expressed concerns that permits are issued for longer than 45 days for temporary commercial parking lots and recipients lease spaces to the general public.
Concern was expressed regarding the use of the former Gray Moss Inn property as a parking lot. Mr. Richter stated he would forward this concern to the Community Response Team.
Discussion ensued regarding deadlines for connecting water and sewer for tents used as temporary housing and it was questioned who would verify compliance.
Mr. Gans moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 5632-94. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Board and Staff Discussion
Ms. Martin questioned the assessment of triple permit fees. It was stated if permits are obtained prior to construction, triples fees are charged as a penalty.
The progress of a house under construction at Sunset Point Road and Oak Ridge was questioned as work has been stopped for some time. Mr. Richter stated if construction is not completed
within three years, the house can be declared a nuisance.
Mr. Richter distributed copies of the traffic and motor vehicle code regarding the obstruction of driver's vision. A notice to trim or remove plants is included in Section 30.142.
He reported complaints can be directed to the Traffic Engineer.
Concerns were expressed regarding plans for the Planning and Zoning Board to hear variance requests. It was felt the value of an additional board's point of view is important.
Emphatic opposition was expressed to the City Commission assuming responsibility for hearing appeals.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Chairman